http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2011/04/15/rancid-reporting-from-counterpunch/
Rancid reporting from Counterpunch<http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2011/04/15/rancid-reporting-from-counterpunch/> Filed under: Libya <http://en.wordpress.com/tag/libya/> — louisproyect @ 3:39 pm Running neck-and-neck with MRZine for printing pro-Qaddafi propaganda, Counterpunch published an article by someone named Thomas C. Mountain on March 23, 2011 <http://www.counterpunch.org/mountain03232011.html>. After making the usual case about how prosperous people were under Qaddafi (most families owned their own houses and cars, etc.), he asks why Benghazi revolted. His answer: The human trafficking industry, one of the most evil, inhumane businesses on the planet, grew into a billion dollar a year industry in Benghazi. A large, viscous underworld mafia set down deep roots in Benghazi, employing thousands in various capacities and corrupting Libyan police and government officials. It has only been in the past year or so that the Libyan government, with help from Italy, has finally brought this cancer under control. With their livelihood destroyed and many of their leaders in prison, the human trafficking mafia have been at the forefront in funding and supporting the Libyan rebellion. Many of the human trafficking gangs and other lumpen elements in Benghazi are known for racist pogroms against African guest workers where over the past decade they regularly robbed and murdered Africans in Benghazi and its surrounding neighborhoods. Since the rebellion in Benghazi broke out several hundred Sudanese, Somali, Ethiopian and Eritrean guest workers have been robbed and murdered by racist rebel militias, a fact well hidden by the international media. Mountain says that this is a “well hidden” fact. For someone so concerned about facts, there is not a single word in this paragraph that is based on his own investigations on the spot or any other human being’s as far as I can tell. A search in Lexis-Nexis for “Benghazi”, “smugglers”, “mafia”, etc. reveals nothing of the sort. In fact, Mountain might have written that guest workers were being boiled alive in cauldrons and then eaten at royalist banquets and it would have eluded Counterpunch’s fact-checkers if they existed. Go ahead and google “Benghazi” and “human trafficking” yourself. The only items that turn up are from Mountain’s article. I would say that this is embarrassing but Alexander Cockburn revealed long ago through his articles on climate change that he is rather shameless. Comments (2)<http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2011/04/15/rancid-reporting-from-counterpunch/#comments> Like<http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2011/04/15/rancid-reporting-from-counterpunch/?like=1&_wpnonce=2db192d11f> Be the first to like this post. 2 Comments »<http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2011/04/15/rancid-reporting-from-counterpunch/#postcomment> 1. Perhaps the worst thing is that this is an attempt to cover up for Gaddafi doing a deal with Berlesconi to halt African migration to Europe (Gaddafi saying that in the absence of such a deal Europe would become black, along with assorted revolting racist observations about black people). I’m sure you’ve got the links to this somewhere Louis. Might be worth including it for that rare breed who combine credulousness with giving a fuck about the facts of the matter. Comment by johng — April 15, 2011 @ 5:05 pm<http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2011/04/15/rancid-reporting-from-counterpunch/#comment-53880> 2. http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2011/03/08/qaddafi-demands-5-billion-euros-to-keep-europe-white/ 3. Qaddafi demands 5 billion euros to keep Europe white<http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2011/03/08/qaddafi-demands-5-billion-euros-to-keep-europe-white/> Filed under: Libya <http://en.wordpress.com/tag/libya/> — louisproyect @ 12:39 am *EU keen to strike deal with Muammar Gaddafi on immigration* Commission chiefs to hold talks with Libya over Gaddafi’s demand for €5bn a year to stop Europe turning ‘black’ - Ian Traynor <http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/iantraynor> in Brussels - guardian.co.uk <http://www.guardian.co.uk/>, Wednesday 1 September 2010 17.58 BST - Article history<http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/01/eu-muammar-gaddafi-immigration#history-link-box> Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi and Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi at a conference in Italy this week, where Gaddafi said the bill for sealing the crossing routes for illegal immigrants from Libya to Europe would be €5bn a year. Photograph: Olycom SPA / Rex Features The European Union <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/eu> is keen to strike a pact with Muammar Gaddafi<http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/muammar-gaddafi>to stem the flow of immigrants across the Mediterranean, officials said today, after the Libyan leader put a price tag of €5bn (£4.1bn) a year on the deal. “There is great scope to develop cooperation with Libya<http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/libya>on migration,” said Matthew Newman, a commission spokesman. Other officials said three negotiating sessions were expected by the end of the year between Brussels and Tripoli as well as the staging of a summit of EU and African leaders in Libya in November. In a highly theatrical visit to Italy this week, Gaddafi warned that Europe would turn “black” unless it was more rigorous in turning back immigrants. Libya is a key transit point for illegal migration from Africa to Europe. The Libyan leader said the bill for sealing the crossing routes would be at least €5bn a year. While the commission in Brussels said that much could be achieved with Libya “for lesser amounts than that named by Colonel Gaddafi”, Franco Frattini, the Italian foreign minister, supported the Libyan leader. He said European government chiefs would discuss the proposed migration pact at the Tripoli summit. Frattini went to Libya today to chair a meeting of Mediterranean-rim countries, five from the EU and five in the Maghreb. “Gaddafi was making an argument all the other Arab leaders in north Africa have made, which is that they don’t want to be the gendarmes of Europe,” Frattini said. “The issue of the 5 billion [euros] has not been looked at up to now. We will look at it in European meetings and I imagine it will be considered at a European-African summit in Libya in November.” Libya is already taking part in three “pilot projects” set up by the EU and Italy on migration, and Tripoli has received almost €20m in EU funding, the European commission said. While in Rome Gaddafi advised Europeans to convert to Islam and sought to bolster his claim for billions from Europe by warning that millions of Africans were seeking to migrate to the EU. “We don’t know what will be the reaction of the white and Christian Europeans faced with this influx of starving and ignorant Africans,” the Libyan leader told a Rome meeting attended by Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister. “We don’t know if Europe will remain an advanced and united continent or if it will be destroyed, as happened with the barbarian invasions.” Relations between Berlusconi and Gaddafi are strong, based on booming business ties and repression of immigrants. Under a much-criticised deal struck two years ago, Italian border patrols in the Mediterranean are turning back thousands of migrants at sea. They are returned to Libya without being screened for legitimate political asylum cases. “Europe needs to finally get a migration policy, giving plenty of funds to the migrants’ countries of origin and helping transit countries facing a huge burden,” Frattini said. The Rome-Tripoli accord has decreased the numbers of illegal migrants coming into the EU. According to one set of EU figures, the number of illegal immigrants last year fell by more than three quarters to 7,300. But a confidential internal security report from EU police and border agencies, leaked to the Statewatch whistleblower this week, said 900,000 illegal immigrants were entering the EU every year. “The risk of illegal migration by north, east and west African nationals to the EU remains high,” said the report. “Libya remains a focal point despite recent success in disrupting entry into the EU by this route.” Comment by louisproyect <http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/> — April 15, 2011 @ 5:12 pm<http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2011/04/15/rancid-reporting-from-counterpunch/#comment-53881> 4. January 7, 2004, Wednesday *Kuwaiti paper details Libyan-Israeli contacts aimed at establishing normal ties* SOURCE: Al-Siyasah web site, Kuwait, in Arabic 6 Jan 04 (clip) The European diplomatic sources have said that Al-Qadhafi’s son Sayf al-Islam and Libyan Intelligence Director Musa Kusa “met Israeli political and security officials several times in August and November in London and Geneva with *Qatari* assistance. These meetings may have paved the way for the crucial meeting in Vienna last week and the resulting agreement on a visit to Tripoli by an Israeli delegation”. A British official in British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s government denied yesterday that his government was aware that the head of Israel’s Mosad had made a secret visit to Libya in December of last year. Several German intelligence reports had confirmed such a visit two weeks ago. However, the same British official declined to comment on the Vienna meeting between Israelis and Libyans in the presence of Americans. He only said that his country “hopes that relations between Tripoli and Tel Aviv will improve as soon as possible”. In a telephone contact with Al-Siyasah, the European diplomatic sources revealed that from the beginning, Washington, London and Tripoli consulted Egypt on President as published Al-Qadhafi’s intentions. They added that Egypt blessed these Libyan steps and encouraged Tripoli to proceed with it to the end and normalize relations with Israel. Egypt was thus capitalizing on Al-Qadhafi’s numerous positive signals towards Tel Aviv and the Jews over the past two years. The European diplomatic sources added that Egypt “exerted serious efforts to convince Al-Qadhafi’s son Sayf al-Islam, who has tremendous influence on his father, to sign a peace treaty with Israel”. The same European diplomatic sources cited US diplomats in Vienna as confirming that the issue of normalization of Libyan-Israeli relations “was one of the most important articles in the deal that was concluded with Al-Qadhafi. The other two less important articles in the deal pertained to the removal of weapons of mass destruction and the opening of Libyan soil to an American-British military presence and an economic presence of American and British oil companies”. http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2011/04/13/edward-hermans-slipshod-writing-on-libya/ 5. *\Edward Herman’s slipshod writing on Libya*<http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2011/04/13/edward-hermans-slipshod-writing-on-libya/> Filed under: Libya <http://en.wordpress.com/tag/libya/> — louisproyect @ 4:28 pm Edward Herman As someone who made a fairly substantial investment in countering the demonization campaign against Slobodan Milosevic during the war in Kosovo, I found myself on the same side of some people who I now feel little in common with. Perhaps the main reason for this is that many adopted what amounted to a formula and applied it to every single foreign policy crisis that ensued. While my main interest was in fighting demonization, looking back in retrospect I am afraid that others had a different agenda. As Trotsky once wrote, they sought to put a plus where the ruling class puts a minus. In this formulaic approach, we find apologetics for Mugabe, Ahmadinejad, Qaddafi, various post-Stalinist leaders of Eastern Europe, and anybody else that got on the wrong side of Human Rights Watch. When writing about Yugoslavia, I found it absolutely necessary to read the press very carefully. The most important instance, of course, was the *casus belli* for the war in Kosovo, namely the alleged massacre in Račak. People like Edward Herman, for example, worked hard to scrutinize the charges against the Serbs in accordance with the higher standards of investigative reporting that are so crucial when American imperialism is on the warpath. That is why it is so disconcerting to see such a precipitous decline inhis recent reply to Gilbert Achcar<http://www.zcommunications.org/gilbert-achcars-defense-of-humanitarian-intervention-by-edward-s-herman>over NATO intervention in Libya. While Achcar is obviously wrong in supporting intervention, our case is not helped by sloppy and lazy if not propagandistic writing by Herman. I refer specifically to this: Achcar describes the rebel forces fighting Gadaffi as representing a “popular movement” and “mass insurrection.” This is dubious—as Stratfor points out, the base of the insurrection has “consisted of a cluster of tribes and personalities,” the heart of which was in the East,, and whose members and leaders “do not all advocate Western-style democracy. Rather, they saw an opportunity to take greater power, and they tried to seize it.”[5] Achcar fails to mention that this eastern Libya base area was a principal recruiting ground for Al Qaeda, and that the killings of civilians and prisoners by these rebels has reportedly been large.[6] He does not suggest the possibility of a bloodbath if they were to take over Tripoli and western Libya. Footnote five cites an article by George Friedman titled “Libya, the West and the Narrative of Democracy<http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110321-libya-west-narrative-democracy>“ that appears on the Stratfor website. If Herman would have us rely on Friedman’s expertise on Libya, one wonders if he would recommend the wisdom of these words that appear in the same article? Each of the countries experiencing unrest was very different. For example, in Egypt, while the cameras focused on demonstrators, they spent little time filming the vast majority of the country that did not rise up. Unlike 1979 in Iran, the shopkeepers and workers did not protest en masse. Whether they supported the demonstrators in Tahrir Square is a matter of conjecture. Well, that’s a surprise to me. I was fairly certain that Egyptian workers did protest against Mubarak. But more to the point, can we really describe Libya’s uprising as “tribal” in nature? Friedman makes this point and Herman appears happy to accept it at face value. Our professor emeritus of finance surely can do better. This trope, which appears widely in the bourgeois press, needs to be scrutinized a bit more carefully. One would have hoped that Herman might have sought out the opinions of Libyans themselves rather than a character like George Friedman, an American citizen who launched Stratfor in a bid to provide CIA type information to investors avoiding risk. On March 30th, Alaa al-Ameri, a British citizen originally from Libya, wrote a piece for Comments are Free on the Guardian website titled “The Myth of Tribal Libya<http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/30/libya-tribal-myth-national-dignity>” that included the following observations: One must also remember who sparked this revolution – it was young people, mostly under 30 years of age, who’ve lived their entire lives in urban centres. How many Glaswegians under 30 know or care from which clan they originated? On what basis, other than cultural stereotyping, do commentators presume that the young people of Benghazi, Misrata and Tripoli are any different? Which tribal allegiance was Mohammad Nabbous – a citizen journalist who established the independent internet television station Libya Alhurra in the early days of the revolution – serving when he was shot dead by a sniper at the age of 28 while reporting on the bogus ceasefire cynically announced by the Gaddafi regime on 19 March? I’d like to ask those who are regurgitating and magnifying the “tribal” propaganda of the Gaddafi regime through the international press – how many Libyans have you consulted about this? How many Libyans who are not members of the Gaddafi regime, not in the middle of a pro-Gaddafi rally in Green Square or some fortified suburb of Tripoli, not under the watchful eye of a pro-Gaddafi minder, have expressed the views you’re repeating in your articles and interviews? As we struggle to liberate ourselves from this horrific regime, you brand us with names hastily acquired from last-minute reading. Tripolitania and Cyrenaica – find me a Libyan who’s ever used those terms to describe their country. By labelling us as “tribal” you effectively dismiss the notion that our uprising has anything to do with freedom, democracy or human dignity. Do you place narrow regional loyalties above these values? I’m sure you would reject any such characterisation, and naturally so. Please do us, as Libyans, the courtesy of allowing us the same human characteristics you attribute to yourselves. Herman’s advises his readers that Eastern Libya was “a principal recruiting ground for Al Qaeda”, a charge of course made by Qaddafi early on. One supposes that we should be grateful that Herman did not repeat the charge that they were on drugs as well. His reference for this is an article titled “Al‐Qa’ida’s Foreign Fighters in Iraq: A First Look at the Sinjar Records” by Joseph Felter and Brian Fishman. I guess you can figure out by the title of the article that the authors are professors in the Combating Terrorism Center at the U.S. Military Academy’s Department of Social Sciences, the last place you’d expect Edward Herman to be dredging material from. The article makes clear that the Libyan fighters belonged to The Libyan Fighting Group, an Islamist group that viewed the occupation of Iraq as evil and that was ready to commit its forces to ousting the American crusaders. It strikes me as odd that men motivated to sacrifice their lives in such an endeavor are now cited as reason enough to smear millions of people opposed to Qaddafi as siding with terrorism. This kind of sloppy amalgam was used against Milosevic often enough when some Serbs used ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and should now not be used against the Serbs. Finally, we must ask some questions about the charge that the Benghazi rebels were killing Black Africans in the manner described by Wolfgang Weber in a wsws.org article titled “Libyan rebels massacre black Africans<http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/mar2011/rebe-m31.shtml> “ <http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/mar2011/rebe-m31.shtml> that is based on an article by Gunnar Heinsohn but which itself is primarily based on a BBC report by a film documentary maker named Farai Sevenzo. It should be pointed out that Weber’s article was cited widely by the anti-anti-Qaddafi left early on, especially since it included this alarming finding: “Because mercenaries from Chad and Mali are presumed to be fighting for him [Gaddafi], the lives of a million African refugees and thousands of African migrants are at risk. A Turkish construction worker told the British radio station BBC: ‘We had seventy to eighty people from Chad working for our company. They were massacred with pruning shears and axes, accused by the attackers of being Gaddafi’s troops. The Sudanese people were massacred. We saw it for ourselves.’” Described as a “genocide expert” by wsws.org, Gunnar Heinsohn’s views demand some careful investigation. I for one would be a bit hesitant to rely on the judgment of a sociologist who defends the “youth bulge” theory of terrorism. This theory, according to the Wiki on Heinsohn, proposes that an excess in a young adult male population leads to social unrest, war and terrorism, as the “third and fourth sons” find no prestigious positions in their existing societies. He cites Palestinians as a prime example. This is someone whose analysis of social unrest in Libya I would not solicit, but what do I know? Now, as I said, Weber’s article relies on Heinsohn’s which relies on Sevenzo’s—three degrees of separation so to speak. So let’s go to Sevenzo’s piece <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12585395> to evaluate his reporting. Sevenzo writes: One Turkish construction worker told the BBC: “We had 70-80 people from Chad working for our company. They were cut dead with pruning shears and axes, attackers saying: ‘You are providing troops for Gaddafi.’ The Sudanese were also massacred. We saw it for ourselves.” This quote has been widely disseminated on the leftwing of the blogosphere, from MRZine’s favorite Sukant Chandan to The Black Agenda Report. Now that’s quite a story, 70 to 80 people—the entire African contingent for an unnamed construction company—being killed in a pogrom. But the problem is that you will find no such reference to the massacre anywhere in Lexis-Nexis, the definitive database for news articles. In fact a search combing the terms “Chad”, “workers”, “killed’ and “Libya” reveals nothing of the sort. Perhaps the most telling coverage of the abuse of foreign workers comes from the Los Angeles Times that reported in a March 4 article titled “Libyan rebels accused of targeting blacks<http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-libya-mercenaries-20110305,0,5517806.story> “: Across eastern Libya, rebel fighters and their supporters are detaining, intimidating and frequently beating African immigrants and black Libyans, accusing them of fighting as mercenaries on behalf of Kadafi, witnesses and human rights workers say. In a few instances, rebels have executed suspected mercenaries captured in battle, according to Human Rights Watch and local Libyans. Now as deplorable as this is, it is a far cry from a story with an uncorroborated claim from an unnamed Turk from an unnamed construction company that 70 to 80 people from Chad were “cut dead with pruning shears and axes”. If that’s the sort of “evidence” that Edward Herman relies on nowadays, then all we can say is that is sad to see how far the near-mighty have fallen. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subscribe: <mailto:[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Digest: <mailto:[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Help: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=laamn> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post: <mailto:[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
